I. Introduction

Imagine for a moment what this conference would be like and what we would be
talking about if this were an Evangelical Missions conference rather than
Orthodox. Aside from the obvious outward difference -- the cleaner cut image,
business suits... maybe we would have had a rock band lead us in the latest top
40 worship hits -- but beyond that, the topics we would be discussing would be
almost entirely different.

We would not be focusing on spiritual formation, and probably not much on
worship -- though certainly not on historic Christian worship. It's unlikely that
fasting, or spiritual discipline would come up as topics -- more likely we would
be talking about what we needed to do to accommodate our churches and worship to
society, so as to make it more appealing and sellable. If it sounds to you like
I'm being unfair, then you probably have not read much in the way of Protestant
Church growth material.

Now suppose that an Evangelical were to leave a conference such as this and
walk in on this one. Aside from being unfamiliar with the outward differences,
such a person would not properly understand most of what has gone on here. It
would not be out of stubbornness on his part -- it would be because in a sense,
we do not speak the same language. His entire frame of reference is alien to the
Orthodox worldview. Certainly there are many points of contact between
Protestantism and Orthodoxy -- we use many of the same terms, we both use the
Scriptures, speak of Jesus Christ, and of the Trinity -- but these points of
contact, in some ways, make it more difficult for a Protestant to understand and
accept Orthodoxy -- and perhaps to an even greater degree, are a huge stumbling
block in the pathway towards developing a truly Orthodox mind.

When I was in High School, I was quite a Martial Arts enthusiast. The style I
studied was a form of Chinese Kung Fu. Now in my Martial Arts school we had a
number of converts from Tae Kwon Doism, who had seen the light and sought refuge
in the Ancient tradition of Kung Fu. What was interesting though, is a
non-martial arts pagan could walk in off the street and they would have an easier
time learning to do the forms and stances correctly.

The problem was that many of the stances and forms, as well as punches and
kicks were very similar -- but just different enough to make it very difficult to
learn to do it the Kung Fu way. But when it came time to put these techniques
into practice -- when we sparred -- this problem became even more apparent. With
time, many of these converts learned to do the stances and forms correctly
(though the Tae Kwon Do influence could still be seen at times) but when they
would spar -- many of them would spar as if they had never studied Kung Fu at
all.

The instructor would often stop the action, and tell such people, "Look, Tae
Kwon Do is fine, if you want to learn Tae Kwon Do, but you're here to learn Kung
Fu -- if you want to learn Kung Fu, you going to have to put what you know about
Tae Kwon Do aside and use the techniques that you've learned here."

The reason these people reverted back to Tae Kwon Do while sparing is simple
-- when you're sparring, you've got to think and act fast, and Tae Kwon Do was
what came natural to them -- in fact it was preventing them from arriving at the
point at which Kung Fu would become natural, and so until they could come to the
point at which they would lay aside their Tae Kwon Do techniques -- little
progress in Kung Fu could possibly be made.

Similarly, in the Orthodox Church today there are many converts from
Protestantism. They have seen in Orthodoxy that which they found lacking in their
former Protestant experience, but very often they speak and act in very
Protestant ways still.

Does this mean that a convert from Protestantism can never really become
authentically Orthodox? I sure hope not. What it does mean however, is that we
have a more difficult road ahead of us then would a convert from paganism.

Former Protestants have the advantage of being more familiar with the
Scriptures, and knowing much of Orthodox terminology, but often they do not move
beyond their Protestant understanding of these things to an Orthodox one, or else
they revert back to it at times in a pinch.

The convert from paganism, doesn't think he has already understood something
that he has not -- and so is more easily instructed.

What converts must realize is that they must become white belts in the
Orthodox Church -- regardless of whether or not they had been 5th degree black
belts in Protestantism.

People often wonder why it is that the Russian Missionaries in Alaska were
able to evangelize the Indians there very quickly and convert entire tribes, and
yet here in Protestant America, converts have only in the last few decades become
numerous, and even still they mostly all come only after a good and long
fight.

The reason is very simple. When the Aleuts heard the Orthodox Gospel from the
Russian missionaries, they did not wrongly think that they already knew what
these missionaries were talking about, and so they got it right the first time,
and so never had to contend with heterodox misinterpretations of the Faith.
Protestants, on the other hand, have in a sense been inoculated against the truth
by having first been injected with a dead form of the Christian Faith. They thus
have an immunity which is only over come with difficulty. A Protestant is almost
never going to be able to accept Orthodoxy immediately upon his first exposure to
it -- only after a long and painful period of dealing with the issues that
separate them from Orthodoxy can they usually come to terms with it.

But this only takes us to the point of conversion -- the point at which a
Protestant is prepared to accept Orthodoxy as the True Faith. What needs to be
understood, but which too often is not, is that that is only the beginning. The
whole conversion process is a subject unto itself, but what I would like to focus
on today is what happens next, after one comes to accept Orthodoxy as the True
Faith, is made a Catechumen, and what continues even after baptism.

To become convinced that Orthodoxy was the true Faith is a revolutionary
change in and of itself for a Protestant -- but becoming Orthodox in mind and
spirit is in many ways even more of a revolution, and it certainly is a much more
involved process. Even those raised in the Church have to develop an Orthodox
mind -- if you doubt that, then just consider for a moment those whom you've met
that were raised Orthodox, but who do not have an Orthodox mind. Many people who
have been Orthodox all their lives have more of a Protestant mind than they do an
Orthodox one -- and some have more of a pagan mind than anything. So no one in
the Church is exempt from this struggle.

Essentially what this transformation requires is a worldview shift --and that
is true for pagan converts as well -- the difference being that because the
Orthodox worldview is so radically distinct from a pagan worldview, it is clear
what changes must be made and there is little room for confusion. With
Protestants, there is much room for confusion -- they are in many ways so close,
but as a result, so far away.

What do I mean by worldview?

A worldview is a set of mental paradigms with which we evaluate our
experiences.

Our worldview determines our expectations of reality, and our expectations
largely determine our perception of reality. If we are faced with something that
does not fit into our paradigm, then we are likely to be blind to it, or to try
to make it fit artificially in our worldview.

For example, in some cultures they only distinguish between two or three
colors, bright and dark let's say -- so to such a person, blue and black are both
just dark, the distinction is missed. Or for an example that is more close to
home: what our cultures predominant worldview would call an emotionally disturbed
person, another (such as that of the Bible) might call demonized. The
expectations of these worldviews will either open or blind a person to certain
possibilities.

An animist would be blinded to the role that germs play in sickness, or that a
head wound or brain damage might play in mental illness -- an animist would see
everything in terms of spiritual forces.

A modern Empiricist, on the other hand, would be completely blind to the very
possibility that spiritual forces could even play a part in such things as
sickness or mental illness.

Our worldview is the way that we think. It is the way that we look at things,
process information, it is the paradigms that with sort things through.
Especially for converts but for anyone who lives in a Protestant culture such as
this, we must clearly understand what the Protestant worldview is and how it
differs from the Orthodox Worldview.

II. Protestant Ethos.

Now some might dispute the need for studying the Protestant way of thinking --
perhaps it might be OK for the purpose of winning converts, but why should those
already Orthodox be bothered? The reason is simple: we live in a society that is
thoroughly Protestant. Furthermore, the Protestant ethos is to be found even
among many who have been Orthodox all their lives.

There is a Chinese proverb which says:"Know the enemy and know yourself, and
in a thousand battles you will not see defeat" [These words were
written over 2,000 years ago by the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi in
his book which is usually called in English "The Art of War."]

The first duty of every Orthodox Christian is to "know yourself", in other
words, to know the Orthodox Faith, as well as to be aware of our own strengths
and weakness and to so walk in humility -- which is not a false humility, but is
actually a very realistic appraisal of ourselves in comparison with the examples
of the saints and in the light of God's standards of Holiness and
Righteousness.

In addition to knowing ourselves, we must know the enemy -- the scriptures
teach us in many places that we are to be vigilant and fully aware of Satan's
devices.

To get a handle on the prevailing Protestant / Secular worldview, I would like
to focus on four major characteristics that identify it and distinguish it from
an Orthodox frame of reference.

A. Humanism/ Individualism/ Secularism

The first characteristic of the Protestant Worldview is that it is
Humanistic.

Now for conservative Protestants this statement will come as quite a shock,
and no doubt they would hotly dispute it -- but the statement is an historic
truth as well as an observable fact. Protestantism was birthed out of and became
the religious expression of the humanism of the Renaissance, and as Frank
Schaeffer has put it: it has been the engine of the Secularization of Western
Culture. Humanism is characterized by its idealization of individual autonomy and
it promulgation of secularization. Church authority was rejected in favor of the
subjective judgment of the individual. The idea of a Christian nation was
replaced with the concept of separation of Church and state -- and for those who
would argue that this was a later development, while it is true that Luther and
Calvin saw no need for the separation of Church and State (because they were in
power) the earliest Anabaptists championed this from the beginning.

What is amazing is how conservative Protestants have viewed humanism and
secularization as a foreign invader that is completely at odds with their faith
-- when in fact it is the fruit of their own intellectual wombs.

For example, every Western Christmas, you can hear Protestants loudly
bemoaning the fact that Christ has been taken out of Christmas and replaced with
Santa Claus -- but where did that come from? It was the English Puritans who
opposed the idea of a religious calendar, and who opposed Christmas and all other
holidays as "pagan" and so sought to replace those holidays with secular
observances. It was these Puritans who invented Father Frost, and replaced the
idea of going to Church on Christmas to celebrate Christ's birth with the family
fun, games, gifts, and food observance that characterizes the common Protestant
observance of Christmas. So in their quest to get rid of the "pagan" Christian
calendar of feasts, it was in fact the Protestants who developed the truly pagan
secular calendar that our culture has come to know and love.

The Protestant tendency toward individualism is also seen manifested in the
Charismatic movement and in other pietistic circles in the form of emotionalism
and an elevation of emotionalism. In contemporary denominational Protestantism,
the worship services is not so much a service to God, but a service that meets
the needs of the people. People look for the church that will best serve them,
rather than a Church in which they can best serve God. If you take a look at the
modern Protestant "Mega Churches" you'll find bowling alleys, swimming pools,
Karate classes, singles groups that will help you find a date, youth groups that
will entertain your kids -- what more could Madison Avenue have to offer?

The focus on entertainment can be seen in the layout of most modern
Evangelical Churches -- they are set up like theaters. You can take you pick of a
Church that offers Country Western Worship, Pop, Rock and Roll, or classical if
you like. It's as easy as choosing a radio station. How alien this is to the
Biblical view of worship in terms of Sacrifice, and service to God. You'll not
find any of the Psalms talking about how the writer was entertained at the
temple, or a focus on how his needs were met.

One need not look to hard in the Bible to see how foreign the concepts of
Secularism, Humanism, and Individualism are to the minds of the Biblical
writers.

There was no separation of Church and state in the OT. In fact the kings of
Israel and Judah were judged by their defense of the Faith against pagan and
heretical religious expressions. Repeatedly we read in the Scriptures, "such and
such king did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, he pulled down the high
places which the Lord had forbidden..." etc.

The worldview of the Bible is not man centered, but is clearly Theocentric.
Individualism would have been a completely foreign concept -- a fact that even
Protestant Biblical scholars do not hesitate to concede. In fact they point out
that the Israelites had a concept of a corporate personality. Certainly they
believed in individual responsibility, but it is clear that the Israelites viewed
themselves as parts of their family unit, their clan, their tribe, and their
nation -- and they recognized that God dealt with them not only as individuals
but as groups.

B. Modernism.

The second chief characteristic of Protestantism is Modernism.

From the very beginning Protestantism has been marked by a complete contempt
for ancient Christianity and Tradition. It must be conceded that Protestantism
was not without justification in protesting the form of tradition that it was
confronting -- because far from being faithful to Ancient Christianity, Papism
was itself an innovation. But rather than return to the authentic Christianity of
Orthodoxy, Protestantism sought to remedy the situation by ostensibly returning
to the ancient purity of the Scriptures, but in reality it was simply replacing
the arbitrariness of a single pope with democratic papism -- in which each
individual was his own infallible pope -- receiving direct revelation from the
Holy Spirit.

Protestants claimed that they held Scripture to be the only authority, and
rejected the interpretations of the Fathers whenever they contradicted the
Scriptures -- but in reality they were really placing their interpretations of
the Scriptures above that of the Fathers, and in essence saying that when the
Fathers contradict their individual interpretations -- their interpretations are
to be taken as more authoritative.

In its fight against Romanism, Protestantism sought to discredit all the
ancient wisdom of the Church. The previous period was termed pejoratively as "the
dark ages." "New" became synonymous with "good"; "Newer" with better; and "New
and Improved" as better still. "Change" is used almost like a magic amulet, that
justifies whatever it is associated with. The ancient Christian view was that
novelty and innovation were absolute proofs of error, but in Protestantism this
was turned on its head to the point that innovation is to them proof of truth.
While Protestants attacked (often with justification) the Roman Tradition for its
post apostolic additions -- they developed new Traditions at a rate that would
make any Papist's head spin.

At heart, Modernism is not really at war with the past nearly so much as it is
at war with God.

Modernism is simply the lever with which Humanists and Secularists have sought
to unseat God from His throne and place man in His stead.

The Secular Humanism that conservative Protestants view as their mortal enemy
is simply a more highly developed form of Protestantism. The pietist
Protestantism of the past has now outlived its usefulness for the Secularization
process, and so has been discarded by the more advanced Protestant
Secularists.

The Reformers rejected Tradition, and said that they only needed the Bible and
their own reason as their guide. Later Protestants turned their knives on the
Bible itself, whittling away at it until they now have only their own reason and
sentimentality as their guide. More Primitive religious Protestants, having been
spurned by Modernity has ever since been trying to catch up with the spirit of
the age by becoming "relevant". To become "relevant" they have sought to further
accommodate their religion to appeal to the broader culture. Today, even among
conservative Evangelicals, it is Madison Avenue that determines their worship --
not any Scriptural mandates. There has been a continuous parade of fads that have
swept this country as Protestants have tried to keep things entertaining and
"new".

C. Arrogance/ Hubris/ Prelest

Closely associated with both Anthropocentric individualism and secularism, as
well as Modernism, comes arrogance, hubris, and spiritual delusion (or prelest).
This is most clearly seen when one examines Protestant Biblical scholarship.

When I was a student at Southern Nazarene University preparing to become a
Protestant Minister, when I was taught how to study the Bible, we were not taught
to consult sacred Tradition or the writings of the Fathers -- not even those
fathers that knew the Apostles personally. We were told that the Church fathers
were all allegorists, and that they really didn't have a clue as to what the
Bible was really saying.

In fact, it became apparent to me that not even the Apostles followed
Protestant principles of exegesis when interpreting the OT -- and indeed my
liberal professors did not hesitate to point out when the Apostles had
misinterpreted the OT. When I asked one of my professors if he thought that he
understood the Bible better than the Apostles -- he without hesitation answered
"Yes!"

More conservative Protestant scholars would explain this discrepancy between
Apostolic exegesis and Protestant Exegesis by saying that the Apostles were
inspired to find spiritual meaning in the OT that was beyond its actual meaning
to the OT writers -- but that we must not interpret the OT like that because we
are not so inspired.

The bottom line however, is that Protestant exegesis is clearly unbiblical,
and those who advocate it must acknowledge, like my more honest professor did,
that they do indeed think that they know the Bible better than those who wrote
it.

More liberal Protestant scholars, such as Rudolph Bultmann claimed to know
more about who Jesus was than Jesus himself knew. They claim to be able to
distinguish what Jesus really said, from what he did not. In essence, 2,000 years
after the fact -- they claim that only now has the Bible really been understood.
The Early Church, the Fathers of the Ecumenical councils, etc. etc., they have
all been fooled and deluded -- it took these clever modern Biblical scholars to
unmask the Truth.

D. Reductionism / Empiricism

The fourth and final characteristic of Protestantism that I want to highlight
is its reductionism, and its rationalistic and Empiricists assumptions.

Protestantism is reductionist in a number of ways. It has always sought to get
back to the "primitive" NT Church, to discard any aspect of the faith that cannot
be proven to have been in place in the NT. Protestants use the truncated OT canon
of the Jews -- in fact if Luther had his way, he would have truncated the NT as
well discarding James especially, along with a few other books that he didn't
like.

Protestants have also sought to define the Christian Faith in terms of
"essentials" -- i.e. what is the bare minimum that one must believe or do to be a
Christian.

In essence, Protestants have always been marked by rationalism, and western
rationalists have always sought to boil reality down to that which could serve as
the firmest foundation upon which to build a sound rationalistic structure.

For example Descarte, using methodological doubt, found that he could doubt
everything in the universe except his own existence --thus the famous line: I
think, therefore I am. Upon this one sure basis -- his own existence -- he then
proceeded to build his philosophical system.

The Reformers were at first content to view the Bible as the irreducible basis
for their rationalism to be built upon, but later Protestants, like Descarte,
using methodological doubt and the criterion of suspicion, began to examine the
Bible to see what could be certainly known in it. Eventually, using their
critical tools, there foundation of Sola Scriptura poured out of their hand like
a handful of dust. Taken from its context within Holy Tradition, the Bible was a
Castle built on thin air -- it didn't take long for it to come crashing down.

Modernists, in their arrogance have presumed to critically analyze the
assumptions of all previous writers and philosophers -- but they have failed to
critically assess their own underlying assumptions.

When I was a ministerial student, I was given the assignment of writing on the
relationship between Empiricism and Biblical studies -- this turned out to be one
of the most revelational studies I had ever conducted. The first amazing
discovery I made was that there was almost nothing written on the subject. It
became very clear that Empiricist and Positivist thought was a basic underlying
assumption in Protestant Biblical studies, but I found nothing that directly
examined the relationship between the two. Another discovery, which came as quite
a shock to me at the time, was that the extreme rationalism and modernism that I
personally rejected when I encountered it in the field of Biblical studies, was
actually very much kin to the Humanistic assumptions that had always been present
in Protestantism. What I came to realize was that the liberals were simply more
consistently Protestant than I was as a conservative trying to hand on to some
absolute truths.

Empiricism is based upon the assumption that the ultimate basis of knowledge
is experience, or sense perception. Empiricism, as the term is most commonly
used, does not refer to a specific philosophy, but rather to the most fundamental
assumptions of the Modern Western worldview. Empiricism seeks to know what can be
known with "certainty" and can be "verified" "scientifically."

The biggest assumption of the empirical worldview is that one can have a
scientific method that operates without assumptions. That sounds ridiculous, but
remember a worldview is a set of assumptions that we are usually unaware of. A
further extension of the assumption that all knowledge is derived from experience
is that reality is determined by what we can observe with our senses and can
empirically test. The result of this belief [!] is that one must deny the
possibility that one could know anything transcendent or supernatural--thus the
reality of the transcendent and supernatural is denied. Empiricists do not
produce evidence that falsifies transcendent reality, or miracles; rather their
presuppositions, from the very outset, deny the possibility of such things.

Most conservative Protestants would object that they do not think this way at
all. They believe in the Bible, and believe in the miracles of the Bible. Of
course, if you are a Christian, then you could never accept all the conclusions
of empiricism, but most Western Christians have adopted many of its assumptions
-- to varying degrees. For example, a Christian could not have a worldview which
denied the transcendent, but many hold a radical dualism in which the
transcendent and the empirical realms are radically separate, seldom come into
contact, and when they do, only on very limited scale.

A pure Empiricist sees only the empirical level as knowable or real.

A Christian cannot deny the transcendent level, because to be a Christian one
must believe in God; but a Christian who operates with empirical assumptions is
blinded to the middle level. It is primarily on the level of the supernatural
that the transcendent and the empirical come into contact; but a Christian
empiricist cannot have the transcendent messing up the empirical realm, and so he
sees God as having little to do with everyday life in the real world. This
worldview is largely responsible for the compartmentalization of religion in the
life of so many Western Christians.

An Animist, on the other hand, is culturally blind to empirical reality.

If someone is sick, then it is an evil spirit at work. Everything is connected
with the supernatural. By the same token, a Christian empiricist immediately
credits the sickness to natural causes, and so is blind to any supernatural
factors at work. An Orthodox worldview, on the other hand, takes both factors
into account -- all sickness is not spirit related, but neither is all sickness
caused by natural factors alone.

Despite the obvious problems of using Empirical assumptions in the presumably
theological field of Biblical studies, Protestants have embraced methodologies
grounded in Empiricist thinking without examining the inconsistency of doing so
because they were in search of some air of scientific objectivity in what would
be otherwise a subjective and individualistic endeavor -- which clearly lacked
any claim to consistency.

The great fallacy in the this so called "scientific" approach to the
Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical assumptions to the
study of history, Scripture, and theology. Empirical methods work reasonably well
when they are correctly applied to natural sciences, but when they are applied
where they cannot possibly work, such as in history (which cannot be repeated or
experimented upon) they cannot produce either consistent or accurate results.

Scientist have yet to invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit
world, and yet many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science the
idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been disproved -- where is
the scientific study that has proven this? Were the Devil to appear before an
Empiricist with pitch fork in hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be
explained neatly in some manner that would easily comport to his worldview, for
although such Empiricists pride themselves on their openness to the truth, they
are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they cannot see anything
that does not fit their version of reality.

If the methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would discredit all
knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is permitted to be inconsistent by
those who hold to it because "its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends
it such a high reputation for scientific severity, that its prestige overrides
the defectiveness of its own foundations." [Rev. Robert T.
Osborn, "Faith as Personal Knowledge," Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (February
1975): 101-126.]

Conservative Protestants have happily been much less consistent in their
rationalistic approach, and thus have preserved among themselves a reverence for
the Scriptures and a belief in their inspiration -- never-the-less their approach
(even among the most dogged Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the
same spirit of rationalism as the Liberals.

A prime example of this is to be found among Dispensational Fundamentalists,
who hold to an elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in history
God has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," such as the
"Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the "Mosaic dispensation," the
"Davidic dispensation," and so on it goes. Thus far, one can see that there is a
degree of truth in this theory, but beyond these Old Testament dispensations they
teach that currently we are under a different dispensation than were the
Christians of the first Century, and so though miracles continued through the New
Testament period, they now longer occur today.

Now this is very interesting, because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural
basis) this theory allows Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the Bible,
while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in their every day life.
Thus, though the discussion of this approach may at first glance seem to be only
of academic interest and far removed from the reality of dealing with the average
Protestant, in fact even the average piously conservative Protestant laymen is
not unaffected by this sort of rationalism.

The connections between the extreme conclusions that modern liberal Protestant
scholars have come to, and the more conservative or Fundamentalist Protestants
will not seem clear to many -- least of all to conservative Fundamentalists!
Though these conservatives see themselves as being in almost complete opposition
to Protestant liberalism, they none the less use essentially the same kinds of
methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, and along with these
methodologies come their underlying philosophical assumptions which the
conservatives have unwittingly bought into.

Thus the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is not in
reality a difference of basic assumptions, but rather a difference in how far
they have taken them to their logical conclusions. Like the Gadarene swine,
together they are rushing headlong toward the edge of a precipice -- though the
liberals may have already gone over the edge, the conservatives are heading in
the same direction, they just haven't gone as far. The Protestant denominations
that today are ordaining homosexuals as ministers were just as conservative a
hundred years ago, and the more conservative denominations are following the same
path.

If Protestant exegesis were truly scientific, as it presents itself, its
results would show consistency. If its methods were merely unbiased
"technologies" (as many view them) then it would not matter who used them, they
would work the same for everyone; but what do we find when we examine current
status of Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the "experts"
themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. In fact this crisis
is perhaps best illustrated by the admission of a recognized Protestant Old
Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel [in his survey of the history and
current status of the discipline of Old Testament theology, Old Testament
Theology: Issues in the Current Debate], that during the 1970's five new
Old Testament theologies had been produced "but not one agrees in approach and
method with any of the others." In fact it is amazing, considering the self
proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant biblical studies, that you
can take your pick of limitless conclusions on almost any issue and find good
scholarship to back it up. In other words, you can just about come to any
conclusion that suits you on a particular issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who
will advocate it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as mathematics
or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of learning that presents
itself as objective science, but which in fact is a pseudo- science, concealing a
variety of competing philosophical and theological perspectives. It is
pseudo-science because until scientist develop instruments capable of examining
and understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical interpretation
is an impossibility. This is not to say that there is nothing that is genuinely
scholarly or useful within it; but this is to say that camouflaged with these
legitimate aspects of historical and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog
machines and mirrors of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant
methods of biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant of
Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions -- and like hoses they
simply spew forth whatever is pumped into them.

With subjectivity that surpasses the most speculative Freudian psychoanalysts,
Protestant scholars selectively choose the facts and evidence that suits their
agenda and then proceed (with their conclusions essentially predetermined by
their basic assumptions) to ply their methods to the Holy Scriptures; all the
while thinking themselves dispassionate scientists. And since modern universities
do not give out Ph.D.'s to those who merely pass on the unadulterated Truth,
these scholars seek to out do each other by coming up with new outlandish
theories. This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion,
and self deception.

Rather than discrediting ancient Patristic Christianity or Tradition,
Protestantism has become the most vivid vindication of Tradition that the Church
could have hoped for. Protestantism itself now stands thoroughly discredited.
Twenty Three Thousand denominations after the Reformation, Protestants are
becoming aware of the spiritual bankruptcy that constitutes denominational
Christianity. I think that this is one of the biggest reasons for the influx of
Protestants into the Church.

III. The Orthodox Mind

Coming to the point where a Protestant realizes the spiritual bankruptcy of
the Western Worldview may bring them to the doors of the Church, but simply
rejecting Protestantism is not enough. For that matter, being convinced that
Orthodoxy is the true Faith is good enough to have you made a Catechumen, but
much more is needed. One must enter into the Spirit of Orthodoxy. Even when one
reaches the point at which they are ready to receive Holy Baptism, this process
must continue -- Baptism is the beginning of your life in the Church, it is a
spiritual birth, but only a stillborn baby will not continue to grow spiritual.
For a convert, must not only struggle against demons and against the flesh to
accomplish this, but one must still contend with the modes of thought that he
operated in prior to conversion.

Before we deal with how one goes about acquiring an Orthodox mind, however,
let me briefly describe what an Orthodox mind is, especially as distinct from the
Protestant mindset we have been discussing.

A. Corporate / Theocentric

Rather than the Humanism and Individualism of Protestantism -- Orthodoxy is
Theocentric, and corporate in its focus.

The focus of Orthodox worship is not on the personality of the priest, nor is
it focused on meeting the needs of individuals, or on contrived emotional
experiences -- the focus is on God. Unlike Protestant churches, in which the
church rises or falls on the personality of the minister -- one need not even
like the priest personally, and he can still worship in that parish, because we
are there to worship God, not to hear a good and stirring sermon. It certainly a
nice touch to have a priest with a good personality and who can give a good
sermon -- but that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

The Church is not the sum total of individuals who are Christians, it is a
community. Christ came to build His Church, not to establish a school of thought,
or to save individuals apart from a community. This does not negate individual
responsibility -- the Orthodox Church firmly believes that you can go to hell all
by yourself, if you want to, without any help from anyone else -- but if you want
to be saved, the Scripture is clear... you need the Church.

An Orthodox Christian is also held accountable by the Church. Christ spoke of
Church discipline, and said that if someone would not "hear the Church, let him
be unto thee as a heathen and a publican" (Matt
18:17).

Christ also gave the Apostle the power to forgive sins in John 20:23 when He
said: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins you
retain, they are retained. It is amazing how Protestants, who say that they take
the Bible literally, blow this verse off -- and when pressed, will flatly deny
the plain meaning of this verse.

But far from being the horrible thing that Protestants think confession is --
it is both Biblical, and a great gift. Because we must humble ourselves, we gain
victory over pride, and because we are held accountable we are given a powerful
tool to help us advance in the Christian life.

One of the biggest criticisms Protestant make of confession is they claim that
we can go out and sin all we want, and then have it all forgiven at confession --
that therefore confession is a license to sin. Obviously no one who has ever gone
to confession would think this -- because although we should be shamed just by
the fact that God knows we have sinned, in fact in our flesh we are more shamed
when other men know our sins. When you go to confession to the same priest week
after week -- we have added to our fear of God (which is something that we must
develop) a witness who will call us to task for it. When temptation comes, the
fact that we know we will be shamed to confess this sin next weekend is adds
further strength to our resistance.

B. Antiquity / Unchanging

Rather than the Modernists continual desire to be relevant, and their valuing
of innovation. In the Orthodox Church, we view innovation as the mark of heresy.
St. Jude says that the Faith was once delivered unto the saints -- we can expect
no new revelation until the second coming.

We are taught that it is our duty to live and pass on the Orthodox Faith in
its purity -- just as we have received it without changing it either by adding to
it, or taking from it. We Orthodox have no need to be relevant to the Modernist
spirit -- because we have seen heresies come and go. Long after Modernism has
been completely discredited and is a faint memory -- the Orthodox Faith will
still be standing. Rather than trying to hitch our wagon to the latest fad (such
as environmentalism) we hold fast to the Traditions we have received from the
Apostles, just as we have received them.

C. Humility, Repentance.

Because Orthodoxy is not individualistic, rather than the arrogance that goes
with that individualism, in Orthodoxy we are taught to humbly listen to the
teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are taught not to think ourselves more
holy or clever than the Fathers of the Church who have clearly shown themselves
to be doers of the Word, and men of holiness -- and so when we read the Bible, we
read it in accordance with the testimony of the Church rather than in the vanity
of our individualistic minds.

As I said earlier, this is not a false humility, but is simply a realistic
assessment of things. When there are 23,000 denominations that all claim to
believe the Bible, but which cannot agree on what it is that the Bible says -- it
is humility that is realistic, and arrogance that is fanciful. Obviously they
cannot all be right, and so humility with regard to one's own interpretations of
the Scriptures is the only reasonable approach to the subject.

This is not to say that all Orthodox Christians are truly humble, or that all
Protestants are arrogant themselves and lack humility. I have known many
Protestants who were themselves very humble, and I know that I myself am often
very prideful. But having operated in both ways of thought, I can say
experientially that the Orthodox approach to theology and spirituality is the
path of humility and repentance.

D. Maximalism / Full Worldview.

Rather than the minimalism of Protestantism, which asks questions like "What
are the essentials? What is the minimum requirements to be a Christian?" The
Orthodox ask what is the most I can do as a Christian?

The Orthodox Faith is a lifestyle, rather than a weekend hobby. We affirm the
Inspiration of the Scriptures as firmly as any Protestant, but we also affirm the
Apostolic Tradition that St. Paul told us included both written Scripture and
oral Tradition -- both of which we are to hold fast to. Christianity is not
reduced to a book, we have received our worship, as well as our theology from the
Apostles.

Rather than the Empiricism of Western Rationalism, that makes Christ and the
Apostles out to be primitive thinking men who were foolish enough to believe in
such phenomena as Demonization and miracles, the Orthodox Church affirms Christ
as maker of all things visible and invisible -- both of the empirical and of the
supernatural. We pray for healing and call on physicians -- because God is not
limited to either to natural or to supernatural means to accomplish his purposes.
God can heal through the wisdom and skill of a doctor, and through the anointing
of oil from St. John Maximovitch's tomb.

In the Orthodox Church, we affirm that there are demons that influence people
and that people are responsible for their own actions. Our worldview can allow
that a man could be driven insane by demons, and that a man could be insane
because of a physical disease. We see no contradiction between the Empirical and
the Supernatural -- and so we are not blind to either reality. Miracles are in
fact such an accepted fact of life in the Church, that we do not go ga ga just
because a miracle takes place -- because we realize that it is not just God that
works miracles, but demons as well. Our society in general has been so closed to
the supernatural, that when they are confronted with an undeniable supernatural
happening -- they automatically assume it to be divine, and so many have fallen
into demonic deception in our times.

IV. The Journey

A. The Pitfalls

I can briefly describe an Orthodox Worldview in a few minutes, but I can offer
no easy solutions when it comes to actually acquiring one. Developing an Orthodox
mind is hard work, and takes time. But before I get into the means that God has
provided for this, let me briefly mention some of the pit falls and snares that
stand in our path. You can always be assured that the demons will oppose any
spiritual effort -- in fact if you are not battling with demons, then you are
most likely not making any spiritual progress.

One of the biggest snares which Satan has laid for us in our day is Modernist
Orthodoxy. This is especially a problem for converts from Protestantism, because
the Modernist Orthodox mentality is Protestant in origin, and so the convert is
likely to be attracted at first to aspects of it because he will find himself at
home there -- it will strike a cord of familiarity. Surprisingly, the origin of
Modernist Orthodoxy is not primarily from converts who have brought such thinking
into the Church, but rather it is cradle Orthodox who have been allured by the
false promises of Modernity and have tried to make Orthodoxy relevant too.

Like the Protestants who in their arrogance have thought themselves more
knowledgeable than the Apostles themselves, there are Modernist Orthodox who
think themselves more Patristic than the Fathers, and who think that they are
more faithful to the Liturgics of the Church than the Typicon -- that only now,
with their arrival, has the real meaning of the services been unearthed. In
typically Protestant fashion, they think themselves able to reconstruct the
services so as to improve them.

They think themselves able to discern which Traditions of the Church and which
canons are worth adhering to and which can be discarded. In fact, you will find
modern "Orthodox Bible Scholars" who have wholesale swallowed all the assumptions
of Protestantism Exegetical Methodologies, and who have written Commentaries and
introductions to the Scriptures -- which are thoroughly Protestant, only not as
good as most Protestant scholars would write.

These modernists have adopted some of the worst of the liberal theories about
the origin of the Bible, such as the JEDP theory [a theory of the authorship of
the Pentateuch which claims that four distinct sources can be identified as the
basis thereof. This theory has been brought into serious question by other
Protestant scholars such as Ivan Egnell] and then proceed to interpret the
Pentateuch in terms of the individual sources in isolation and in disregard of
the actual canonical shape of the text. Even good Protestant Scholarship has
rejected this [even among Protestant scholars who accept some of the ideas of one
form of the JEDP theory, the better ones, such as Brevard Childs, acknowledge
that it is not the theology of the "J" source or of the "D" source, but the
theology of J, E, D, and P that we have to deal with -- in the form that we have
received as Canon].

These scholars also all but completely ignore what the Fathers of the Church
have said about the Scriptures -- what could be more Protestant, or more
antithetical to Orthodoxy. These modernists, flaunting this tradition, or that
canon, protest that none of these are the essence of the Faith but it is true of
them which is written, "He who despises small things will fall little by
little."

Another related pitfall that converts must beware of, is Convertism
Orthodoxy.

By this I mean that Orthodoxy which one usually will find in an all or almost
all convert parish. This kind of Orthodoxy is not consciously Modernist -- in
fact most people in such parishes sincerely desire authentic Orthodoxy, but
because they are in jurisdictions which have been infected with Modernism, they
have often been given stones instead of bread. I by no means want to broad brush
here -- not all convert parishes are this way, and in fact among jurisdictions
that have been infected with modernism, it has mostly been converts who have
begun to resist these tendencies.

The cause of Convertism is a neglect of the subject at hand -- it is the
result of a failure to recognize the need to develop an Orthodox mind, and to
consciously seek to rid oneself of Protestant modes of thought. Converts who have
fallen into this pitfall are generally teachable, though not all, and when they
see authentic Orthodoxy they are attracted too it.

The third and final major pitfall for converts is extremist cultish
Orthodoxy.

Heresies have a tendency to come in pairs -- for example Nestorians /
Monophysites. Modernism and Ecumenism are the primary errors with which the
Church is currently struggling, but its opposite extreme is to be found among
extremist Cult-like Orthodox Groups that are usually centered around a cult
personality, and often claim that only they are Orthodox. Some forms of this
extremism are very easily identified because they are found in schismatic groups
-- other forms of extremism are to be found even within our midst. This is a
pharisaical Orthodoxy, that in reaction to the modernists disregard for
tradition, has become so fixated on certain externals to the neglect of the
weightier matters of the law -- such as love and mercy.

Christ said of the Pharisees that they would be sure to count out their seeds
to ensure that they paid the tithe, but that they neglected mercy, love, faith;
they laid heavy burdens on others, but they would not lift a finger to lift them
themselves -- this does not mean that adherence to the outward aspects of the
Tradition are unimportant -- Christ said they should not neglect either the
internal or the external matters of the law.

Some converts who came into the Church in a jurisdiction in which modernism
was prevalent, are very susceptible to going to the opposite extreme and winding
up in the opposite error. What must be made clear is that Orthodoxy is the narrow
road -- neither to the right, nor to the left can we deviate -- straight ahead we
must go, along the well worn path of Holy Tradition.

B. The Weapons of our warfare.

God has provided us the means of transformation, and the renewal of the mind.
In the Church and in the Holy Tradition we have been given numerous means of
grace -- channels that God has put in place that if we avail ourselves to them we
will be given grace in abundance.

1. The Mysteries

Chief among these means of Grace are the Mysteries.

We have been given Holy Baptism to unite us to Christ and to His Body. We have
been given Chrismation, by means of which we are filled with the Holy Spirit. The
Holy Eucharist -- the antidote of immortality -- through which we partake of
Christ Himself and through which we become His Body. Penance -- through which we
are granted remission of sins, and are given the grace to overcome those sins.
Holy Matrimony -- which creates the foundation of the local Church -- the Family.
Holy Unction -- for the healing of soul and body. And The Priesthood -- through
which the Apostolic ministry is preserved and all other mysteries are made
available.

If we neglect the Sacraments or take them lightly, then it should be no wonder
that we are carnal and so far removed from the Holy Spirit.

2. The Services and Service

God has also provided us with the Divine Services -- which lift our mind up to
God, and through which we are taught by the Holy Spirit. The services are the
training ground of the Martyrs, both those who shed their blood and those who
witness by pouring out their lives for God. The services empower us for divine
service -- the two cannot be separated. We cannot do evil and come and worship
God -- to neglect either is to make the other an act of hypocrisy.

3. Prayer and Fasting

Probably two of the most neglected tools for developing an Orthodox mind are
prayer and fasting.

Neither of which can be separated either. God does not need our prayers, nor
does he need our fasting -- it is we that need to pray, not to change God but to
change ourselves. It is we that need to fast -- not because God is impressed, but
because we learn to overcome the flesh by fasting. Resisting our natural desires
becomes a habit, a skill. When faced with greater temptation we have learned how
to resist the Devil. To neglect fasting, is to neglect Spiritual struggle. If you
never fast, you'll have no trouble battling demons -- you'll be occupied
territory to them, and they'll spend their energy on someone who is actually
trying to be a Christian.

The strongest statement on fasting I have ever heard came from St. Seraphim of
Sarov -- who when asked by a girl how she should go about choosing a husband,
told her to choose a man who fasts because "if a man does not fast, he is not a
Christian, no matter what he may call himself.

Prayer and Fasting are like physical training for a soldier. They are
spiritual push ups and pull ups. The word Asceticism itself means exercise, and
asceticism is the spiritual exercise that will make us spiritually strong. To
neglect this exercise to be a spiritual coach potato. Don't expect to get
anywhere without them.

4. The Fathers

The Writings of the Fathers are sure guides to Theology and the Spiritual
life. Modern writers can be of use, some more than others, but do not neglect the
writings of the Fathers. Do not be content with reading about the Fathers -- read
the Fathers themselves.

5. The lives of the Saints

Converts often will waste most of their time reading modern writers -- often
modernist writers, and will totally ignore the lives of the saints. In the lives
of the saints we are shown what an Orthodox Christian should be. When we read
their examples and how they overcame trails and tortures we are given the
patterns to follow. During the persecution of the Church in Russia -- the pious
were not at a loss as to how to deal with a government that gave them the choice
of Christ or life -- they knew well the response of a Christian, and gladly gave
up their lives.

6. Cradle Orthodox

One blessing that many converts see as more of a scourge than a blessing is to
be surrounded by people who have been Orthodox all their lives. Converts are
indeed zealous, and they are often turned off by those who have been raised in
the Church but who lack their enthusiasm. There is a great temptation to judge
such people, but what a convert must learn to do is to ignore those who are
impious, and to learn from those who are pious. Ideally some of the zeal of the
convert will rub off on the person who has always been Orthodox, and the wisdom
and experience of the cradle Orthodox will temper and properly direct the
convert.

Conclusion:

As I said, it is much easier to describe an Orthodox mind, then it is to
acquire one. There is no easy short cut. It's hard work. Recognizing the problem
though is a major step in the right direction. Realizing what we are doing, and
catching ourselves when we fall back into a Protestant mode of thought is a major
move towards overcoming those snares and moving beyond them.

I hope something you have found something useful in this discussion, and that
we will and strive to "be not conformed to this world, but transformed by the
renewing of our minds..." (Romans 12:2).

From a talk given at the Southwest Missions Conference,
Dallas, July 1995, by Priest John Whiteford, St Jonah Orthodox Church, Spring Texas